Interventions to

Promote Basic
Math Skills
Kelly DeCoste
EDPS 658
University of Calgary
June 12, 2012

Introduction
What are basic facts?
Computational skills

What do we know?
Math skills at school entry predict later academic

achievement
Lack of automaticity in basic skills is predictive of later

problems in higher level math skills

Magnitude comparison, counting, simple arithmetic,

number identification
(Jordan, Kaplan, Ramineni, & Locuniak, 2009; Melhuish
et al., 2008; Resnick, 1983, as cited in Tournaki, 2003;
Wendling & Mather, 2009)

introduction
1% meet DSM-IV-TR criteria for Mathematics Disorder
5-8% of school-age children struggle with math

>60% of students with a reading LD

also struggle in math

Three subtypes of Math Learning

Disabilities:

Procedural disorder

Semantic disorder

Visuospatial disorder
(APA, 2000; Geary,
1993)

What does it look like?

Slow, effortful performance
Difficulty with storage and retrieval
Inefficient/developmentally inappropriate strategies
Struggles in

Learning basic arithmetic

Number reading, comparisons, sequences, counting

Understanding mathematical language

Creating and/or interpreting visual representations

of concepts

Poor number sense

Does NOT mean higher level functions are impaired

Why?
Internal Factors
Inaccurate/inefficient

strategies
Language/communication
Spatial skills
Reasoning
Attention
Self-confidence/anxiety
Poor retrieval (error-prone)
Memory

WM, memory span, LTM

Processing speed

External Factors
Curriculum issues

Design

Materials

Poor teaching

Understanding

Practice

Poor fit

Skill level and instruction

theory
Developmental approach
Instructional Hierarchy (Haring, Lovitt, Eaton, & Hansen, 1978)
Gardners Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983)

(Carpenter & Moser,

1984)

Theory: Instructional hierarchy

(Haring et al.,
1978)

Instructional hierarchy
Stage 1: Acquisition
Low accuracy, low fluency

Modeling
Demonstration

Stage 2: Fluency
High accuracy, low fluency

Practice!!
Time-based performance
Immediate feedback (rate)

(Haring et al., 1978)

Instructional hierarchy
Stage 3: Generalization
High accuracy, high fluency

Use skill in multiple settings/situations

Discriminate between similar skills

Stage 4: Adaption
High accuracy, high fluency, many situations

Adapt elements of previously learned skills to new

demands/situations

(Haring et al., 1978)

Effective instruction
Direct instruction
Most effective for basic/isolated skills
Strategy instruction
Rhymes, visuals
Combination approach to instruction best
Peer-mediated instruction
Moderate effects

(Kunsch, Jitendra, & Sood, 2007; Wendling & Math

Books!
The Grapes of Math (Tang, 2004)
Spaghetti and Meatballs for

All! A Mathematical Story

(Burns, 1997)

One Grain of Rice: A

Mathematical Folktale

(Demi,

1997)

Math Curse (Scieszka, 1995)

Mummy Math: An Adventure

in Geometry

(Neuschwander, 2005)

Patterns in Peru (Neuschwander,

2007)

(Tang, 2004)

Effective interventions
Good teaching practices
Appropriate level of skill

difficulty
Modeling, feedback,

reinforcement
Concrete representational -

abstract
Activate prior

knowledge/make connections
Active, engaged learners
Independent practice!

How do we know?
Efficiency
Permanence
Generalizability

Goals
Increase

fluency/proficiency of basic
math facts and strategies
Increase confidence

A note of caution
What are the active ingredients of effective

interventions?
Lack of research-based intervention programs and

validated strategies

Reliability/validity?

Generalization?

Maintenance?

Feasibility for classroom use?

Effective interventions
Classwide peer tutoring
Drill and practice

Cover-copy-compare

Web-based resources

Commercial products

TouchMath

QuickSmart

Explicit timing

Classwide peer tutoring

Peers trained and supervised by teacher
Increases student engagement
Differential effectiveness?
Other models:

Peer-assisted learning strategies (PALS)

Reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT)

(Kunsch et al., 2007

Drill and PRactice

Why?

Automaticity will increase

overall competence

Allotment of cognitive
resources

Goal

EXAMPLES:
Self-correcting materials
Cover-copy-compare
Games
Web-based resources

Increase speed of responding

Clear directions, modeling

and monitoring
Considerations
Transfer?
(Tournaki,
2003)

Cover-copy-compare
Adapted from a program designed for spelling
Self-managed repeated trials
5 steps:

A) Look at the problem and answer

B) Cover

C) Write the problem and answer

D) Uncover

E) Compare

Mixed empirical support

More effective for those with lower fluency?

(Codding, Burns, & Lukito, 2007; Skinner, Turco,

Beatty, & Rasavage, 1989, as cited in Wendling
& Mather, 2009)

Web-based resources
Pros:

Graphics, sounds, action, extended attention span

Can provide extensive practice, immediate corrective feedback, adapt

Cons:

Lack of well-designed empirical studies

Results inconsistent

Improvements in effectiveness do not match technological developments

Medium, method or content? How can we design media to improve learning?

Largest gains in primary grades, when used as additional

practice
Short interventions successful if targeted
Daily practice (10 minutes/day)

(Rasanen, Salminer, Wilson, Aunio, &

Dehaene, 2009)

Web-based resources

http://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/category_g_1_t_1. htm

http://www.eduplace.com/kids/mw/

http://www.mathk8.nelson.com /

http://www.hbschool.com/thinkmath/index.html

www.illuminations.nctm.org

www.multiplication.com

www.funbrain.com

Commercial products
TouchMath (Bullock, Pierce, & McClelland, 1989)
Multi-sensory program
Goal: Improve automaticity of basic skills in middle school

students
Bridge between manipulation and memorization
Stages:
Learn positions of the dots (1-9)
Single-digit addition
Count-all to count-on

More effective than other instructional

methods?

(Calik & Kargin, 2010;

Graham, Bellert, Thomas, &
Pegg, 2007)

Commercial products
QuickSmart (SiMERR, 2001)
Teacher-directed program
Explicit strategy instruction, modeling, discussion,

questioning, feedback, guided and independent

practice
Matched pairs of students
3, 30-minute lessons per week for 30 weeks
Some empirical support
Feasibility?

EXPLICIT TIMING
Mark progress in one-minute intervals when

completing an assignment
Self-monitoring (problems/interval)
No formal feedback (accuracy)
Mixed empirical findings
Effect on accuracy?
Initial skill proficiency?
Motivation?

(Codding et al.,
2007)

conclusions
No universal effective interventions
Match intervention to skill level and student

characteristics
Further empirical evidence needed!

references

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (4th ed., text rev.).
Washington, DC:

Author.

Bullock, J. K., Pierce, S., & McClelland, L. (1989). TouchMath. Colorado Springs, CO: Innovative Learning Concepts, Inc.

Burns, M. K., Codding, R. S., Boice, C. H., & Lukito, G. (2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math
interventions with

instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School

Psychology Review, 39, 69-83.

Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ps/i.do?id=GALE

%7CA223824940&v=2.1&u=ucalgary&it
=r&p=AONE&sw=w

Calik, N. C., & Kargin, T. (2010). Effectiveness of the touch math technique in teaching addition skills to students with
intellectual

disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 25, 195-204. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
search/detailmini.jsp_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ890578&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0
=no&accno=EJ890578

Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades one through
three. Journal for

Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179-202. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/stable/

10.2307/748348?origin=api&

References

Codding, R. S., Shiyko, M., Russo, M., Birch, S., Fanning, E., & Jaspen, D. (2007). Comparing mathematics interventions:
Does initial level

of fluency predict intervention effectiveness? Journal of School Psychology, 45, 603-617. doi:

10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.005

Geary, D. C. (1993). Mathematical disabilities: Cognitive, neuropsychological, and genetic components. Psychological
Bulletin, 114,

345-362. Retrieved from

http://graphics.tx.ovid.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ovftpdfs/FPDDNCMCPEMADF00/fs047/ovft/
live/gv024/00006823/00006823-199309000-00008.pdf

Graham, L., Bellert, A., Thomas, J., & Pegg, J. (2007). QuickSmart: A basic academic skills intervention for middle school
students with

learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 410-419. doi:

10.1177/00222194070400050401

Haring, N. G., Lovitt, T. C., Eaton, M. D., & Hansen, C. L. (1978). The fourth R: Research in the classroom. Columbus, OH:
Charles E.

Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence
and later

Merrill Publishing Co.

mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45, 850-867. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.09.003

Kunsch, C. A., Jitendra, A. K., & Sood, S. (2007). The effects of peer-mediated instruction in mathematics for students with
learning
problems: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 1-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00226.x

Melhuish, E. C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B, Phan, M. B., & Malin, A. (2008). Preschool influences
on
mathematics achievement. Science, 321, 1161-1162. doi: 10.1126/science.1158808

references

Poncy, B. C., Duhon, G. J., Lee, S. B., & Key, A. (2010). Evaluation of techniques to promote generalization
with basic math fact skills.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 76-92. doi: 10.1007/s10864-010-9101-x

Rasanen, P., Salminen, J., Wilson, A. J., Aunio, P., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Computer-assisted intervention
for children with low numeracy
skills. Cognitive Development, 24, 450-472. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.09.003

Tournaki, N. (2003). The differential effects of teaching addition through strategy instruction versus drill
and practice to students

with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

36, 449-458. doi: 10.1177/00222194030360050601

Velasco, V. (2009). Effectiveness of touch math in teaching addition to kindergarten students. (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (1472250).

Wendling, B. J., & Mather, N. (2009). Essentials of Evidence-Based Academic Interventions. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley and Sons.